CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MINUTES
18 April 2008 (Friday)
Misner Room
Present:
Jane Brazell, Derek Buescher, Alyce DeMarais, Greg Elliott, Leon
Grunberg, Kriszta Kotsis, Mary Rose Lamb (Chair) , Lynda Livingston,
Paul Loeb, Bob Matthews, Elise Richman, Florence Sandler, Brad
Tomhave , Barbara Warren, Jenny Wrobel
Visitors:
Alana Jardis, Kim McDowell
Call to order. Chair Lamb called the meeting to order at 9:02
Remarks by the Chair: The report on the internship / co-op program (Working Group
4) was moved to the top of the agenda to accommodate our visitors.
Approval of Minutes of March 28, 2008: The minutes were approved as written
Announcements: There were no announcements.
Working Group Reports:
WG 4: Elliott presented the work of Working Group 4 on the co-op and
internship guidelines. This was an effort to bring the usage and practices
of the two programs back to its original intent.
The major goals addressed were to
• match academic credit with academic experience (prevent use of
internships receiving academic credit for work experience)
• maintain same opportunities and offerings for students
• create structured academic agreements and expectations
The major changes proposed:
Main changes proposed:
• internships involve substantive academic component; co-ops involve
work experience related to academic and professional interests
• academic syllabus required for internship courses, in addition to job
description; the student’s grade in an internship will be assessed
solely based on the academic component of the internship
• internship courses are graded courses for an academic unit (but do not
satisfy upper division graduation requirement; only full 1 credit
unit is available)
• co-ops receive activity credit linked to number of hours worked (0.25,
and 0.5 activity units are available), are graded pass/fail, and may
not apply to the Upper-Division Graduation Requirement.
• CES has the authority to set enrollment limit on the total number of coop registrations to 20.
• both co-ops and internships must involve off campus work
(Secretary’s note: The above text on goals and changes was
copied from Working Group 4’s report to the Curriculum
Committee which is attached as Appendix A)
Chair Lamb asked what students would pay. Tomhave responded that
students would pay for the units registered for.
McDowell supported the new structure which meets the needs of the
administration of the program.
Loeb M/S/P approval of the new guidelines (attached as Appendix B and
Appendix C).
WG 1: DeMarais reported the work of Working Group 1 on the Social Scientific
Approaches core. The process included the process, including the use of
questionnaires followed by a meeting with the Social Scientific
Approaches faculty. There were some concerns raised about the core
rubric. Sandler asked if we should attempt to change the rubric this year.
Chair Lamb asked if this should not be deferred until the “fallow year”
core review in the next academic year. Sandler suggested with general
agreement that the possible changes in the core rubric suggested in the
report of Working Group 1 (attached as Appendix D) be considered by the
2008 - 2009 Curriculum Committee
Loeb M/S/P that the Committee approve the Social Sciences core review.
DeMarais M/S/P that History 246 (China from 1600) and History 248
(Japan from 1600) be approved for the Humanistic Approaches Core
WG 2: Loeb and Buescher reported on behalf of WG 2 on the work in adding
material on academic integrity in the guidelines for first year seminars.
This was given as a charge to the Committee by the Faculty Senate.
DeMarais noted that the working group suggests a link on the academic
integrity policy be placed prominently on the Library home page.
Livingston asked how this would be made a part of the syllabus.
Buescher responded that class time for a discussion on this issue might be
placed in the syllabus.
Kotsis asked how this would affect current courses. Loeb replied that the
requirement would be incorporated into existing first year seminars.
Brazell said that it would be incorporated into Committee Action Reports.
There was some discussion on the wording of the additional requirements
and a change was made which is reflected in the final approved text
(Appendix E).
Loeb M/S/P that the Committee approve the proposed revised rubrics for
first year seminars. This will now be reported to the Faculty Senate for
referral to the full faculty.
WG 3: The work of Working Group 3 was deferred until our next meeting.
WG 5: Working Group 5 had nothing to report.
Continued Discussion of Calendar Setting (agenda item 5)
Tomhave reviewed the report requested by the Committee on the proposed
change to the grade due date policy (The “Livingston” rule). The proposed rule
would have affected the past (Fall 2008) semester, but would not otherwise
require many changes.
Buescher asked why we need time between sanctions and the start of Spring
term. Tomhave replied that students and their advisors need to have time to
appeal negative decisions made by the Petitions Subcommittee.
Sandler asked if individual instructors could be notified that grades were needed
particularly for some students. Tomhave responded that we need to have all
grades in on time, and expressed concerns about the possible effect on individual
instructors this might have.
There was some further discussion on possible wording, but, as we were running out of
time, we decided to continue this discussion at our next meeting. Kotsis M/S/P we
adjourn, and we did adjourn at 9:50.
Respectfully submitted
Bob Matthews
Appendix A: Report of Working Group 4
4.14.2008
Proposed Internship and Cooperative Education program changes
Working Group Four (Greg Elliott, chair, Kriszta Kotsis, Alyce DeMarais, Brad
Tomhave)
Our group has reviewed the guidelines and learning agreements for the internship and
cooperative education programs offered through CES. With input from Alana Jardis and
Kim McDowell in CES, we have crafted a new set of guidelines with substantive
changes. Copies of the proposed new guidelines are attached.
Main goals addressed:
• match academic credit with academic experience (prevent use of internships receiving
academic credit for work experience)
• maintain same opportunities and offerings for students
• create structured academic agreements and expectations
Main changes proposed:
• internships involve substantive academic component; co-ops involve work experience
related to academic and professional interests
• academic syllabus required for internships, in addition to job description; the student’s
grade in an internship will be assessed solely based on the academic component of the
internship
• internships are graded courses for an academic unit (but do not satisfy upper division
graduation requirement; only full 1 credit unit is available)
• co-ops receive activity credit linked to number of hours worked (0.25, and 0.5 activity
units are available), are graded pass/fail, and may not apply to the Upper-Division
Graduation Requirement.
• CES has the authority to set enrollment limit on the total number of co-op registrations
to 20.
• both co-ops and internships must involve off campus work
Appendix B: Revised Internship Guidelines
General
The University of Puget Sound offers students the opportunity to undertake an
internship in order to:
• Apply cognitive learning in an off-campus work-related organizational
setting.
• Extend knowledge acquired elsewhere in the curriculum.
• Reflect upon work experience within an academic context.
Eligibility
The eligibility of a student to undertake an internship will be determined by the
Office of Career and Employment Services using the following criteria:
• Junior or senior class standing.
• Cumulative university grade point average of at least 2.50.
• A major or minor in a department, school, or program; or other academic
preparation appropriate for the internship placement.
• Recommendation of the academic advisor.
• Approval from the chair or director of the department, school, or program
for which the student will receive credit (if a faculty-sponsored internship).
Requirements
The requirements of the internship will be specified in the Internship Learning
Agreement composed of an Academic Syllabus and a Job Description. The
Learning Agreement must be completed; signed by the intern, the supervising
instructor, the department chair or program director (for a faculty-sponsored
internship), and the work supervisor; and submitted to the Office of Career and
Employment Services before the end of the add period during the term in
question. The student may then be registered.
The Academic Syllabus* should be comparable to the syllabus of any upperdivision course in the curriculum and should include:
• A list of the academic topics or questions to be addressed.
• The learning objectives to be achieved.
• The reading and/or research requirements relevant to the topics and
learning objectives.
• The assignments or progress reports (plus the dates they are due to the
instructor) to be completed during the internship.
• The final project, paper, report, or thesis to be completed at the conclusion
of the internship.
• A regular schedule of days and meeting times of at least 35 hours for the
internship seminar. Or, a comparable schedule of at least 35 hours for
consultation with the instructor and independent research in a facultysponsored internship. In either case, students should regularly review
•
•
their progress toward their learning objectives and should discuss how
they are applying their previous courses and experiences to the internship.
The date during the final examination period (or the date by the last day of
the summer session) for the student to submit the self-assessment to the
instructor unless arrangements have been made to extend the internship
with an in-progress grade beyond the normal end of the term.
The instructor’s grading criteria.
*A student in an internship seminar will also have a seminar syllabus from the
seminar instructor. The student should not duplicate the seminar syllabus in
the Learning Agreement Academic Syllabus but must address those items
specific to the student’s particular internship.
The Job Description will include:
• A list of the specific job responsibilities and tasks relevant to the intern’s
academic learning objectives.
• A list of the specific job responsibilities and tasks relevant to the student’s
employment expectations although not directly related to the academic
learning objectives.
• An employment schedule of at least 120 hours.
• The criteria used by the supervisor to evaluate the intern’s job
performance.
• The date by which the supervisor is to send the student’s performance
appraisal to the Office of Career and Employment Services.
Grading
An internship is intended to be a graded course (although a student may select
pass/fail grading). However, the instructor of a faculty-sponsored internship may
determine that, due to the nature of the experience and the job assignments,
pass/fail grading is appropriate.
A student’s performance in an internship will be assessed by the student’s
achievement on the academic requirements, as assigned and graded by the
University faculty-member, and on the completion of work responsibilities, as
evaluated by the supervisor at the organization hosting the internship.
Additionally, the student may be required to complete a self-assessment
reviewing the learning objectives, how they were achieved, and how that
achievement was demonstrated.
Designation
• The internship seminar will be designated at INTN 497.
• The department-offered internship will be designated with the department
abbreviation and the course number 497. (For example, the Writing
Internship offered by the English Department is designated as ENGL 497.)
•
The internship sponsored by an individual member of the faculty will be
designated with the department abbreviation of the faculty member and
the course number 498.
Credit
Credit for an internship is not applicable to the Upper-Division Graduation
Requirement and only 1 unit may be assigned to an individual internship and no
more than 2 units of internship, or the combination of internships with co-ops,
may be applied to a bachelor’s degree.
Appendix C: Revised Co-Op Guidelines
General
The University of Puget Sound offers students the opportunity to undertake a cooperative education experience so students, through full or part-time
employment, may:
• Gain pre-professional experience through academically-related offcampus employment.
• Gain relevant experience to provide context for later academic studies.
• Extend theoretical knowledge to practical application.
• Achieve work-related and academic goals in preparation for employment.
Eligibility
The eligibility of a student to undertake a co-op will be determined by the Office
of Career and Employment Services using the following criteria:
• Sophomore, junior, or senior class standing.
• Cumulative university grade point average of at least 2.50.
• A declared major, minor, or interdisciplinary emphasis in a department,
school, or program appropriate for the co-op placement.
• Recommendation of the academic advisor.
• Approval from the chair or director of the department, school, or program
for which the student will receive credit.
• Total enrollment in co-ops is limited to 20 students per term.
Requirements
The requirements of the co-op will be specified in the Co-Operative Education
Learning Agreement composed of a Job Description and Learning Objectives.
The Learning Agreement must be completed; signed by the student, the
supervising instructor, the department chair or program director, and the work
supervisor; and submitted to the Office of Career and Employment Services
before the end of the add period during the term in question. The student may
then be registered.
The Job Description will include:
• A list of the specific job responsibilities and tasks assigned to the student.
• The criteria used by the employment supervisor to evaluate the student’s
job performance.
• The student’s work schedule with start and end dates plus an outline of
hours to be worked each day of the week.
• The day and time during the week that the student will meet with the
supervisor to review job performance and progress toward learning
objectives.
• The date by which the supervisor is to send the student’s performance
appraisal to the Office of Career and Employment Services.
The Learning Objectives should reflect the student’s academic and professional
interests and must specify how the student intends to achieve a pertinent
experience by including:
• Specific intended objectives for undertaking the co-op.
• A description how each responsibility or task assigned by the employment
supervisor can be made relevant to the intended objectives.
• A schedule of days and times for meeting with the instructor to review the
student’s assessment of personal job performance and progress toward
the learning objectives.
• The date during the final examination period (or the date by the last day of
the summer session) for the student to submit the self-assessment to the
instructor unless arrangements have been made to extend the co-op with
an in-progress grade beyond the normal end of the term.
• Any specific objective that may be assigned by the instructor.
Grading
A student’s performance in a co-op will be graded pass/fail by the instructor using
the employment supervisor’s appraisal of the student’s completion of job
responsibilities (forwarded by the Office of Career and Employment Services);
the student’s self-assessment regarding the completion of learning objectives,
how they were achieved, and how that achievement was demonstrated; and by
any additional criteria the instructor assigned in the Learning Agreement.
Designation
• The co-operative education experience will be designated COOP 499 COOP EXPERIENC.
Credit
Activity credit will be granted for a co-op and such credit is not applicable to the
Upper-Division Graduation Requirement. For a student employed half-time (at
least 240 total hours), .25 activity unit will be granted with half-time enrollment
status. For a student employed full-time (at least 480 hours), .50 activity unit will
be granted with full-time enrollment status.
As activity credit, a co-op is included in the limit of 1.50 units of activity credit that
may be applied to a bachelor’s degree. Apart from the activity unit limit, no more
than a total of 2.00 units of co-ops combined with internships may be applied to a
bachelor’s degree.
Appendix D: Social Scientific Approaches Core Review
Curriculum Committee
April 7, 2008
SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES CORE REVIEW
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Brad Richards (Chair), Alyce DeMarais, Leon Grunberg, and Elise Richman
Overview and Summary
Our review of the Social Scientific Approaches core area was informed by the syllabi
from recent sections of courses in the core, faculty responses to our questionnaire, and
our discussion with a group of faculty currently teaching in the core. The results of our
review are summarized in this section, and are followed by the current objectives and
guidelines for the core area, the faculty responses to our questionnaire, and notes from
our meeting with faculty teaching in the core.
In general, we found that courses in the core are meeting the core objectives. The core is
supported by a healthy number of courses, and draws from an interesting range of
disciplines. Faculty teaching in the core are happy with the current objectives and
guidelines, for the most part, and feel that their courses are satisfying the requirements for
courses in the Social Scientific core area. Some concerns were expressed about the role
of empirical evidence and the testing of models, however, and are worth mentioning here.
The core rubric specifies that students should acquire an understanding of the ways in
which empirical evidence is used to develop and test theories about individual or
collective behavior. This emphasis on empirical evidence was problematic for some
courses, as illustrated by these two (separate) responses to our questionnaire:
“My biggest challenge in achieving the core objectives has been including a
sufficient discussion of the ways in which empirical evidence is used to test the
theories.”
“The guidelines appear to require real empirical analysis of some sort or
another (using data to test models). I can’t say that this occurs in my course –
no statistics analysis or regression analysis at this level. Obviously real
empirical analysis does occur later in the economics curriculum. So….either
we need to think about ways [of] introducing empirical analysis per se into
Econ 170 or the core rubric description needs to be written to allow for more
general discussions of the use of empirical data with regard to model testing
(something I do in that course).”
This topic was explored in more detail during our meeting with the faculty teaching in the
core. (See the notes at the end of this document.) Some faculty thought the current
language proscribed the use of data too narrowly. Some felt that the word “model” was
problematic, as the term is not used in all disciplines represented in the core, and does not
accurately capture the theories of behavior in others. Suggestions included dropping the
requirement that data be used to analyze a model, and introducing terms like
“perspectives” or “hypotheses” to supplement or replace “model”.
Our working group did not feel that these semantic issues were significant enough to
warrant removing any courses from the core, or requiring any particular rewording of the
rubric or guidelines. It is worth bringing to the attention of future review committees,
however, and it may warrant discussion within the core about a preferred rewording.
Objectives and Guidelines
The Social Scientific Approaches Core Rubric:
Learning Objectives: The social sciences provide systematic approaches to
understanding relationships that arise among individuals, organizations, or
institutions. Students in a course in the Social Scientific Approach to Knowing
acquire an understanding of theories about individual or collective behavior within a
social environment and of the ways that empirical evidence is used to develop and
test those theories.
Guidelines:
I. Courses in Social Scientific Approaches
A. explore assumptions embedded in social scientific theories and
B. examine the importance of simplifying or describing observations of the
world in order to construct a model of individual or collective behavior.
II. Courses in Social Scientific Approaches require students to apply a social
scientific theory as a way of understanding individual or collective behavior
Faculty Responses
1. Do you think that your students are aware of the purpose of the Social Scientific
Approaches core area? How do your students learn about this core area?
- Most students at the beginning of the course seem to have a general sense of what
the social sciences try to do. I think they learn about this core area from their
advisor or friends. Most awareness comes from introduction to the course on the
first day.
- Yes, I think my students are aware of the core area, mostly because I go over it at
the start of the course, discuss it in my syllabus, and return to discuss it
throughout the term.
- I really don’t know if students are generally aware of the social sciences core
goals and objectives. I do not mention these goals in my syllabus or in my
lecture/discussions per se though they are addressed in various ways throughout
the course. Students learn about this core area by reading the bulletin and to some
degree through advising and to some degree by word of mouth in conversations
with other students.
- To be perfectly honest, I never mention or discuss the fact that the course
(Econ170) is one that fulfills the “Social Scientific Approaches core” category.
At no point during the semester do I explicitly or specifically identify or discuss
the “Guidelines” for this core area. And, again, to be honest, I have never given
any thought to how students learn about the actual guidelines for this core area.
What's odd about my lack of discussion of the core guidelines in this area is
how different I approach the same issue in my first-year writing and rhetoric
seminar: in that class, I include the guidelines verbatim in the syllabus; we go
over them the first class day; and I explicitly reference them over the course of the
semester to provide the rationale and motivation for various activities and
assignments.
- In my experience, students are aware of the Core rubric and the general nature of
social scientific evidence. They do not, however, have a coherent understanding
of the nature of theory and the role of theory in guiding hypotheses and
interpreting findings. Most of my students have been sophomores. They selected
my course from the list in the Bulletin “because it sounded interesting.” The
course does not appear to attract unexpected numbers of students from the
sciences, arts, or humanities.
- Only those that have read the Bulletin carefully know what this (or any other)
core is all about. My students learn more about this core area because I discuss it
briefly on the first day of class. I am vested in this core specifically because I was
the chair of the subcommittee that drafted the objectives and guidelines of the SS
core all those years ago.
- I can only assume that they are aware of it in the sense that there is a core
requirement that they have to fulfill. The extent to which they understand its
general purpose is uncertain to me. But that they need to fill the core is clear to
them.
- Yes, I think they are aware of the Social Scientific Core. Since the “social
sciences” are a standard part of both high school and university curricula, I think
the students are fairly well informed about, and prepared for, the social scientific
core.
- No, I doubt students who enroll in Econ 170 have much real familiarity with the
core purposes. If they have any it is because of advising or perhaps they
remember reading something about it in the catalogue. They learn about the core
area by advising and general information from the university.
- I think students understand that our distribution requirements are called the core
curriculum, and that that have to take courses from that rubric. Beyond that I
doubt that most students understand the criteria governing the Social Scientific
Approaches category.
- Somewhat. I emphasize at the beginning of the course and throughout it that I
want them to understand the methods and assumptions of social psychology, not
just
the
interesting
findings.
- I think students see core categories as menus and select courses that meet their
interests and fit the category.
2) Based on your experience and the assessment of information that you have
collected, do you think that students have achieved the learning objectives of the
Social Scientific core area? What assignments, teaching strategies, texts, etc.
were most useful in helping students achieve the learning objectives of this core
area?
- Yes, I strongly believe that students in IPE 201 have achieved the learning
objectives of this core area. The class textbook systematically examines
relationships between individuals, organizations, and institutions internationally.
Three major theoretical perspectives are presented (liberalism, mercantilism, and
structuralism) and assessed with a variety of empirical evidence in tests and short
writing assignments.
- Yes, I believe that for the most part my students have achieved the learning
objectives. I think the texts and our thorough discussion of those texts have been
the most useful for this.
- Econ 170 is ideally suited to satisfying the stated goals. The course is model and
data intensive. The models are all designed to explain behavior of individuals as
consumers and businesspeople and investors and as policy makers in the broader
context of a mixed market economy. Almost all introductory economics
textbooks are well-suited in this regard. I give two writing assignments that are
particularly pertinent. The first one requires students to explain why the price of
some commodity has changed (as described in a news article of their choosing)
using the market model (and the role played by consumers and businesses in that
regard). The second assignment requires students to critique current Federal
Reserve policy in light of their own assessment of the state of the economy based
on their perusal of relevant commentaries and some data.
- Despite my lack of attention to the guidelines, I nonetheless am pretty confident I
fulfill them and that the students achieve them. Indeed, a significant component
of what I consider to be “my job” in that class is to introduce students to the
language and methods of economics. That objective is stated in my syllabus and I
reference it myself throughout the semester in class. I have them practice with the
language and the tools, both orally in class and in a variety of written
assignments. I frequently point out the unique aspects of my discipline,
particularly how it might differ from the humanities or other social sciences. (I
also point out what we borrowed from physics.) Perhaps because this objective -that students understand the language and methods of economics -- is so central to
my class while simultaneously fulfilling the core guidelines explains why I never
considered any need to go over the guidelines with the class.
- The major assignment involves studying a campaign, collecting evidence
regarding the campaign’s success, and developing a theory-driven plan for
improving outcomes. Students responded favorably to exercises on conducting
literature reviews and interpreting primary evidence. The textbook I used in my
last offering of COMM252 (Pfau & Parrot, 1997) is now out of print. I have
located a new text that blends persuasion and media (Borchers, 2007). I believe
that the emphasis on new media will be very attractive to our students.
- My IPE 201 course, which counts for the SS core, is designed to meet the learning
objectives, and I believe that most students do achieve the learning objectives,
though it is impossible to know for sure because they are never surveyed
specifically about the objectives. The readings that I employ, especially the text
by Dave Balaam and Mike Veseth (Introduction to International Political
Economy), provide many empirical examples of the theories introduced at the
beginning of the course, and issues discussed throughout the semester.
Essentially, IPE examines the relationships between individuals, states, and
institutions, so it lends itself, by default, to the objectives of the SS core. Finally,
when I discuss research papers in class, I discuss the importance of bringing in
empirical evidence since this is social science.
- Our course (PG 102) is built around a common syllabus (O’Neil, Fields, Share)
and a common text we authored. We are confident that that material is organized
toward the core objectives, particularly an understanding of institutions. Mixed
lecture, discussion, in-class exercises and use of real-world examples (including
student presentations) solidify their understanding and the relationship between
theory and empirical evidence
- I teach a relatively traditional introductory economics course, but since it covers
both the more technical/modeling aspects of economic theory as well as current
economic issues/policies, I believe they get a good introduction to understanding
how the social science of economics predicts/explains individual and collective
behavior. The essay exams seem to do a good job of evaluating student learning
in the course.
- Yes, the gain an appreciation for the social science approach principally because I
introduce them to methods and approaches as part of the course material. The
prime methods I use to introduce the ideas are from the text (most introductory
economics texts cover these basic concepts) and lecture (I stress model building,
assumptions, and the logic of the method).
- I am very confident that PG 102 explores assumptions embedded in social
scientific theories and examines the importance of simplifying or describing
observations of the world—that is the essence of PG 102. Whether they
encourage or facilitates students’ ability to construct a model of individual or
collective behavior is questionable, but certainly PG 102 students come away
from the course with a far better understanding of differences among major
political systems, differences among major ideologies, and different models of
viewing the world. My course is pitched at the introductory level, but I would
still argue that PG 102 occasionally requires students to apply a social scientific
theory as a way of understanding individual or collective behavior. In terms of
specific assignments, PG 102 requires each student to write a final paper that
includes a political science argument, using categories of analysis, and
marshalling evidence to support argument. In terms of teaching strategies, PG
102 is built around three sets of country cases (UK/Japan, China/Russia,
Iran/South Africa) and many classes are spent doing basic comparative analysis.
Today, for example, I had my PG 102 attempt to answer the question: how can we
explain the early democratization of the UK, and the very late democratization of
Japan? I had student teams make arguments for different categories of analysis
(political institutions, economic factors, international factors, and ideological and
societal factors). As for texts, PG 102 is fortunate to use two texts written by
comparative political scientists at Puget Sound. Patrick O’Neil’s text introduces
to the basic analytic concepts of comparative politics, while our co-authored set of
cases provides the raw material for basic comparative work.
- Yes. I think assignments that require them to cite original source research send a
strong message about the empirical nature of the discipline. They have to follow
some conventions of APA style such as NOT using any direct quotations, but
summarizing and citing evidence to justify arguments. I’d be happy to provide
copies of these types of assignments if you want.
- Since this is the first time I have taught the course under the Social Science rubric,
I have no information to contribute.
3) Based on your experience and the assessment of information that you have
collected, how (if at all) would you change your course? How (if at all) would
you change the core guidelines or learning objectives? Please comment in
particular about any pedagogical challenges you encountered in trying to
balance the core objectives.
- I am happy with the course as it is currently designed. I continue to make small
changes from semester to semester. I continue to try to improve students’ ability
to gather empirical evidence and interpret it. I am pleased with the current core
guidelines and learning objectives.
- As a philosopher teaching substantially philosophical texts, I have had great
success in helping my students acquire and understand diverse theories and
models of individual and collective behavior within a social environment My
biggest challenge in achieving the core objectives has been including a sufficient
discussion of the ways in which empirical evidence is used to test the theories. In
the past, I have included texts by more empirical authors like Durkheim (e.g.
Suicide) and this has proved very useful. But (especially as compared to e.g.
Leon or Wade or Sunil, who are all social scientists), I have felt some tension
with the suggestion that I am introducing students to the “scientific” aspect of the
social approaches, and several of the authors I teach are skeptical of the
assumption that individual and collective behaviour within a social environment
can or should be treated “scientifically.” I think that my course would be best
described as an introduction to the origins and foundations of social science (as
opposed a survey of contemporary work in the social sciences).
- The guidelines appear to require real empirical analysis of some sort or another
(using data to test models). I can’t say that this occurs in my course – no statistics
analysis or regression analysis at this level. Obviously real empirical analysis does
occur later in the economics curriculum. So…..either we need to think about
ways introducing empirical analysis per se into Econ 170 or the core rubric
description needs to be written to allow for more general discussions of the use of
empirical data with regard to model testing (something I do do in that course).
- I wouldn't change the guidelines at all myself -- I think they convey exactly what
we should be doing in that core area.
- Your questions, however, have brought to my attention the vastly different
approach I take to them in comparison to my first-year seminar. I think I will do a
better job of situating the social science core guidelines -- more explicitly -- in my
class from now on.
- Although I’ve only offered it twice, COMM 252 is evolving. The greatest
challenge has been conveying the logic of theory-driven hypothesis testing.
Students seem to be unnerved by the notion of Type I and Type II error. I have
addressed the issue of false positive and false negative findings by including an
assignment on formative pre-campaign research and descriptive on-going
research. This helps them see how managers use theory to calibrate a campaign
and assess outcomes at key moments.
- The only thing that I will probably change in the future is to link material back to
the social sciences more often throughout the semester (i.e., talk about the value
and particular approach of social science, and the objectives of the SS core). I
believe the guidelines and objectives are sufficient as they stand (but then again, I
am biased…see answer for question 1). Insofar as pedagogical challenges go, I
have not experiences any related to trying to balance core objectives. As
mentioned above, it would be impossible to teach IPE 201 without meeting the
learning objectives of the SS core.
- I don’t see any particular challenges, other than to reinforce the idea that what we
are trying to do is to get them to master conceptual tools, not memorize (or chat
about) facts or news that may be interesting now but not relevant later. This is
pretty minor concern, however.
- I have no suggestions for how the core should be changed or improved. As for my
own course, the science of economics may be on the cusp of some major changes
in its theoretical practice and I would like to bring some of this new material
about these changes into my introductory course.
- I don’t really think there is any need to change the course or the leaning
objectives. I can’t imagine an intro level social science course that does not
introduce methods and concepts. I do not think teaching to the objectives
produces any problems in my course.
- I happen to think the PG 102 is an extraordinarily effective course within the
Social Scientific core area. However, I would be dishonest if I pretended that I
have ever considered the core guidelines in the design in developing PG 102.
Over the past decade I worked with O’Neil and Fields to develop a common PG
102 curriculum, and we did so with sole goal of creating a foundation for the PG
major and the comparative politics track. We are extremely proud of the course
because we have first-hand evidence that we are achieving the common learning
objectives we sought. For example, this semester I strictly required PG 102 for
my PG 380 Latin American Politics course. I have students who have completed
PG 102 with each of the three instructors. My students have a common
vocabulary, a shared set of analytical skills, and an awareness of social science
methods. As a result, I was able to make the redesigned PG 380 a real upperdivision political science course, and students are responding well. PG 102 was
part of the old International Studies core. When that category disappeared, and
when we saw the new Social Scientific core, we thought that PG 102 would fit in
it, but we were not willing to modify PG 102 to fit into the core. Since IPE
unilaterally added PG 102 as a required course for that major, PG 102 has been in
high demand, and we have a hard enough time finding seats for our own majors.
- I think the new core rubrics are actually better than the last ones in the sense that I
can explain to students why it is so important that they understand the methods
and forms of reasoning used in the discipline.
- I am working on how to balance theoretical concepts with students’ experiences,
both the ones they bring in to the class and shared exercises/simulations.
4) If you have taught transfer students in this core area, have you noticed any
particular challenges?
- I have not noticed any particular challenges.
- I don’t recall any special difficulties with teaching transfer students in this core
area.
- I am not aware of any particular issues that are unique to transfer students in my
Econ 170 course.
- Among those students who I know have been transfer students (that is, I may not
know they are), I have encountered no challenges. A couple of them have been at
or very near the top of the class.
- I have not taught a transfer section of COMM 252.
- I have not had very many transfer students in this core category. But based on my
experiences teaching transfer students in all courses, I would say that many
experience difficulties adjusting to the expectations of UPS. However, they are
often eager to improve and to work with me on improving their performance. I
guess the answer to the specific question above is no, this core in particular has
not presented any challenges where transfer students are concerned.
- No. They are uneven depending on where they have come from, but that’s not a
core issue per se.
- I have not noticed any difference between transfer and non-transfer students.
- No.
- Transfer students present challenges, but none related to the core area. Many
transfer students lack basic writing and analytical skills, are not used to the heavy
work load, and some have not been well advised about their course selection.
- Haven’t noticed.
- N/A
Meeting with Faculty
Social Scientifc Approaches (SSA) Core Review Discussion
March 3, 2008
In attendance: Brad Richards (chair, curriculum committee working group), Leon
Grunberg (curriculum committee working group and SSA faculty), Elise Richman
(curriculum committee working group), Alyce DeMarais (curriculum committee working
group), and faculty members Nick Kontogeorgopoulos (IPE), Patrick O’Neil (Politics and
Government), Ray Preiss (Communication Studies), Ross Singleton (Economics), and
Carolyn Weisz (Psychology).
Brad opened the discussion by telling the group this was their review and posing the
question: should SSA courses address all the objectives and guidelines in the rubric?
Carolyn responded that she found the current rubric less confusing than the old rubric.
Ross asked for clarification about whether data (empirical evidence) were required to
address the models mentioned in the rubric. After we went over the SSA rubric, Patrick
asked how the group could help the curriculum committee subcommittee with their work.
Brad gave an overview of the review process and noted that changes to the rubric could
be recommended.
Ross noted that the specific issue with the rubric was the notion of “constructing a
model” (Guideline I.B.) and Leon agreed. Carolyn suggested that the word “model” may
be the issue. She gave the example that in Psychology analytical and application pieces
are applied but the term “model” is not used. Ross suggested the rubric could allow for a
more general discussion of empirical data (not specifying that data be required to analyze
a model).
After a review of the guidelines, Nick noted that they reflect the make-up of the group
that developed the guidelines (chaired by Nick) and therefore contain areas from
Economics, Psychology, Sociology, etc. Nick noted that empirical evidence can be used
to back up claims and not necessarily to only test the validity of a model. Ray suggested
we look at courses that were added to the SSA core under the new rubric (i.e., Ray’s
course Comm 252 Public Communication Campaigns). He noted that it was easier to
design a new course to address the new rubric rather than trying to “retrofit” an existing
course to fit the rubric.
Carolyn mentioned that staffing issues played a key role in precluding some Psychology
courses from being listed in the SSA core. She noted that for a course to be in the core it
needed to address the “ways of knowing” rather than containing specific content. She
thought a disciplinary “way of knowing” fulfills the spirit of the core. Ray agreed that
the core should not necessarily be a leverage point for departmental recruitment. Ross
noted that Econ 170 addresses the guidelines but not necessarily all the objectives;
however, we consider it a good SSA course. Leon concluded that most believe in filling
the spirit of the core.
Ross returned to the question of the language of the rubric and noted that “test” and
“model” seem to be the two problematic words. Leon suggested the addition of
“perspectives” or “hypotheses” after the term “model” and change “model” to “models.”
He explained that some sociologists are interested in understanding rather than causality.
Alyce asked if courses in the SSA core are taught differently than they would be if not in
the core. Carolyn noted the broad range of students (but usually no first-year students –
the course fills before they can register) in her Social Psychology course. She would
teach the course differently if it was all majors and not in the core. Ray noted that the
content in his course would be aimed at a higher level (300 level; juniors and seniors) if it
was not in the core. Patrick noted that the P&G SSA courses would be the same if they
were not in the core. They compare to similar courses taught across the country. He also
noted that the national trend for these courses is to address the objectives we have in our
rubric. Ross reported that Econ 170 would not change.
We talked a bit about assessment. Earlier in the discussion, Carolyn noted that she uses
informal evaluations in her courses (mainly in Connections courses). She thought we
could address the core objectives verbatim in the evaluations to determine if the courses
were addressing the objectives. Patrick thought it would be fascinating to embed the core
language in syllabi then assess through evaluations. He volunteered to try this in his
courses in the fall. Carolyn noted that we could determine if we were: 1) not addressing
the core objectives in the courses, or 2) were not being transparent about the objectives.
Carolyn also noted that addressing the objectives of the core area diffuses the students’
expectation of disliking empirical evidence discussions. Ray reported an assessment
strategy that Communication Studies faculty members are using for their 400-level
seminars. They collect three categories of student papers (good, mediocre, poor – my
terms) and assess whether they achieve the goals/objective of the course. They use a
Cascade “check-out” system that includes an assessment survey that the students must
complete before the end of the semester. Patrick liked this strategy and noted that it
would be an interesting mechanism for comparing multiple sections of the same course.
Respectfully submitted,
Alyce DeMarais
Appendix E: Revised First Year Seminar Rubrics
Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric Rubric
Learning Objectives
In each Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric, students encounter the two central aspects of
the humanistic tradition of rhetorical education: argumentation and effective oral and
written expression. Students in these seminars develop the intellectual habits and
language capabilities to construct persuasive arguments and to write and speak
effectively, and with integrity, for academic and civic purposes.
Guidelines
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Through their introduction to argumentation, these seminars address:
A.
the value of pro/con reasoning and the need to approach a controversy
from multiple perspectives;
B.
issues and questions that organize a particular controversy;
C.
standard argument forms and other persuasive strategies (for example,
traditional and contemporary models of reasoning, narrative); and
D.
methods of evaluating arguments (including evidence evaluation and
identification of logical fallacies).
Through their introduction to effective expression, these seminars address:
A.
important elements and conventions of standard written English;
B.
the range of lexical and stylistic resources available to speakers and
writers (for example, appropriateness, audience, tone, voice, and other
aspects of a message's verbal texture); and
C.
various oral and written composition strategies, including approaching
composition as a process (including purposeful drafting, revising, and
editing).
These seminars address respect for the intellectual work and ideas of others
by acknowledging the use of information sources in communicating one's
own work. Methods for addressing academic integrity are built in to
seminar assignments.
These seminars may be organized around topics, themes, or texts; in each seminar
the material must be appropriate and accessible for meaningful work by first-year
students.
Scholarly and Creative Inquiry Rubric
Learning Objectives
The purpose of this core area is to introduce students to the processes of scholarly and
creative inquiry through direct participation in that inquiry. Students in a Scholarly and
Creative Inquiry Seminar gain a degree of mastery that comes with deep exposure to a
focused seminar topic. They increase their ability to frame and explore questions, to
support claims, and to respond to others' questions and differing opinions. Finally,
students develop and demonstrate their intellectual independence by engaging in
substantive written work on the topic in papers or projects, employing good practices of
academic integrity.
Guidelines
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Scholarly and Creative Inquiry seminars examine a focused scholarly topic, set of
questions, or theme.
Since seminars in this category are taken in the student's freshman year, they are
designed to be accessible and appropriate for the accomplishment of meaningful
work by students without previous preparation in the course's field. This
requirement informs the choice of topic or theme of the course, the choice of texts
or materials to be treated in the course, and the design of assignments for the
course.
Seminars in Scholarly and Creative Inquiry require substantive written work on
the topic in papers or projects and include significant intellectual exchange both
between the instructor and the students and among the students. Careful,
sustained, and recurrent examination of ideas and sources (broadly defined to
include data, texts, media, and/or other visual, aural, or graphic material) play a
central role in the course. Pedagogical methods take advantage of the
opportunities provided by a seminar setting.
Seminars in Scholarly and Creative Inquiry address respect for the
intellectual work and ideas of others by acknowledging the use of
information sources in communicating one's own work. Methods for
addressing academic integrity are built in to seminar assignments.